|
|
|
Now £20bn for the Olympics? I can well believe it, of course. It would work out at a mere £1.3bn a day over 15 days (or £54m an hour).
But where does the figure itself come from?
Very interested.
The Creator |
Homepage |
11.10.07 - 9:48 am | #
|
|
Creator-
£20bn is Tyler's guesstimate.
It was originally derived from the figures summarised in this blog- http://burningourmoney.blogspot....e-of-
tears.html
In particular, the government's original £2.375bn headline figure deliberately masked a further £11.4bn odf associated infrastructure and running costs. Which gave an original grand total of £13.8bn.
We then factored in an allowance for over-run - because both Athens and Sydney overran, and virtually all government projects over-run (see summary in this blog- http://burningourmoney.blogspot....uch-
really.html )
£20bn is an over-run of about 45%, towards the top end of the range but well within experience.
I'll try to blog a fuller answer in a few days.
Wat Tyler |
Homepage |
11.10.07 - 11:43 am | #
|
|
Please, no need at all to dig deeper on my behalf.
I would say that the best that can be hoped for is the the Brown Terror will have collapsed well before 2012 and a new Tory govt., Cameron-Lite or not, will have come to its senses and long since called the whole thing off.
Sad to say, it won't happen of course. With the deadline inexorably approaching, more and more money will be shovelled at the games. And they will still be a fiasco.
As for the Glaswegians,well nice to know they have the English taxpayer to fall back on.
Incidentally, and shamelessly pushing myself, I have a rather good post up about the numbers of French war dead in WW1. And sorry, yes I know I shouldn't do this. But I am quite proud of it. It's here: http://thedailybrute.blogspot.co...stice-
day.htmls
The Creator |
Homepage |
11.10.07 - 5:13 pm | #
|
|
The Brab did not have turboprops, as they had not been invented then. It had to make do with piston engines, and as a result was severely underpowered, which was one of the main problems which led to its abandonment.
It's amazing that at a time when Britain was absolutely potless after the war, and still on rationing, the money could be found to waste on a project such as this, but such are the glories of socialist central planning I suppose. Anyone for a ground nut?
Rob |
11.10.07 - 5:40 pm | #
|
|
I was going to be pedantic and point out that the Brabazon used piston engines not turboprops but I was pleased to see that Rob had already made that point. However, I still get to be pedantic. Turboprops had actually already been invented at the time of the Brabazon design. Indeed the successful Vickers Viscount airliner had flown with turboprops in 1948, over a year before the Brabazon first flew.
Pedant |
11.10.07 - 9:27 pm | #
|
|
Well, according to aviationarchive.org.uk, on page 9 of its Brabazon story, there was a decision (too late) to convert the Brabazon to "gas turbines" - but no details.
dreamingspire |
11.10.07 - 10:37 pm | #
|
|
"Brab 1 takes another step forward on her truely British, slow but sure progress to success, as the first non-technical passengers board her for a flight over London. She's got a certificate to carry non-fare paying passengers, so she's taking up MPs. Our most easily expendable load."
Quite.
For all it's crapness, at least we were trying. Now all we seem capable of as a nation is weasel words, violent crime and dodgy financial products.
I've always thought it funny seeing Nimrods at airshows when they fly past with the bomb bay doors open. Biggest bomb bay doors in NATO apparently. But it's probably never dropped a bomb in it's life. Perhaps if it had been employed as a bomber there would be more of them and they would have been kept up to date like the US has done with it's B-52s.
The age of having or needing to do our own thing is long since gone. The MOD often like to keep a hand in with the rest of Europe so why didn't we just get Airbus something or others and call them Nimrods?
Gareth |
11.10.07 - 11:53 pm | #
|
|
" I was going to be pedantic and point out that the Brabazon used piston engines not turboprops but I was pleased to see that Rob had already made that point. However, I still get to be pedantic. Turboprops had actually already been invented at the time of the Brabazon design. Indeed the successful Vickers Viscount airliner had flown with turboprops in 1948, over a year before the Brabazon first flew."
Superb pedantry. I award you the Golden Anorak First Class.
Rob |
11.11.07 - 4:31 pm | #
|
|
Gareth - yes, we were trying. Today, the self-loathers want a supine, dependent population drifting around the EU superstate.
Roger Thornhill |
Homepage |
11.16.07 - 2:38 pm | #
|
|
Flights London
http://www.flights-london.co.uk/
Flights London |
Homepage |
12.30.07 - 7:45 pm | #
|
|
Commenting by HaloScan
|